Subject: Re: Consensus Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request Date: Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 12:28:56AM -0500 Quoting John C Klensin (john-ietf@xxxxxxx): (John, this is more of a general rant than a reply directly to you. Please accept apologies for the kidnapping..) > If you advise using some piece of the 1918 space, you can only > say "We aren't aware of anyone using this space under so-and-so > circumstances" and not "We can prove that no one is using that > space". We can also say "This space is quite possibly used on the inside of customer-managed devices and thus might create routing system confusion. As with all use of non-unique address space, the responsibility falls on the communicating parties to coordinate their address block utilisation so as to avoid damaging amounts of ambiguity." I did 1918 coordination in joint venture networks 12 years ago, and felt the pain. If I did, then, being the wet-behind-the-ears can-do optimist that I was, why is it that nobody more sane in the industry realised it? I find it repulsive to excessively pamper the late-comers to something that we've KNOWN was going to happen for 15 years. draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request should be rewritten to offer, say, 172.28/16, as "Mostly used between CPE and CGN" and we all should move on to deploying IPv6 and get the ops warts out of it. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 ... the MYSTERIANS are in here with my CORDUROY SOAP DISH!!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf